Beilue: Let public decide on school security

It’s been six weeks — a traditional slice of a school calendar — since the Newtown, Conn., shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School left 20 children and six adults dead and a nation stunned.

After the shock and grief came the predictable — gridlocked screeching debate on the balancing of guaranteed liberties with public safety. Paranoia, emotion, wrong-headed assumptions and knee-jerk recommendations have ruled the day.

A New York newspaper published the names and addresses — with an interactive map — of those who were issued gun permits in two populous counties. Nice.

And did you hear the Sandy Hook shootings were a trumped-up hoax? Oh, it’s out there, pushed along by some loons who think it was all a conspiracy to ratchet up gun control proposals.

But through the hysteria and wringing of hands an occasional sensible measure pokes through, like a quiet hand slowly going up in a classroom of noise. One comes from, of all places, the Texas Legislature.

“My initial reaction is I’m OK with it,” said Rep. John Smithee, R-Amarillo. “Then debate can take place in local communities if this is something they want or not.”

Legislation was introduced last week for the proposed Texas School District Safety Act. It would allow local taxpayers the option to vote to pay additional taxes to increase safety at public schools.

Wait, time out. More taxes? Not necessarily. It’s the option of creating special taxing districts. Voters in a school district would determine cost vs. needs in an election.

“It’s a tough call,” Dumas ISD Superintendent Mark Stroebel said. “Everyone is concerned. Everyone has children, grandchildren, friends that attend school, but to what extreme do you go? Are we talking $50,000 to $100,000? It depends on what a community sees fit as far as safety.”

And that’s the yellow highlight marker on this. Stroebel said Dumas is fortunate to have a police department within its eight-campus school system. Dumas may feel its security is adequate and sensible, so its board may not see a reason to put such a tax before voters.

Other school districts may have concerns. Under the measure’s proposal, it would be left to each community to make that determination.

It’s a decision made by those who know their communities best — the ones who live there. The Texas School District Safety Act would not be one-size-fits-all policy sent down from on high.

“Every school district has different needs and different expectations,” Smithee said. “It’s better to do it on a local basis. Let local voters decide this. The school board, in combination with voters, can determine their own (security) program.”

Texas PTA, a statewide parent-teacher organization, gave the legislation an endorsement, calling it “a measured and conservative approach to making Texas schools more safe and secure.”

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Tommy Williams, R-The Woodlands, said he envisions school districts placing trained, licensed and armed peace officers in all schools, or those schools a district chooses. Again, local control, local concerns, local decisions.

Of course, local control means local wallets. The state budget is not going to fund additional school security, but it’s not mandating it either.

“Local control is always best,” Stroebel said, “but putting the burden on the taxpayers is another question. Is it the local taxpayers’ responsibility? Depends on the viewpoint you take.

“A two-cent tax increase in one community won’t raise the same in another community. One district might get a part-time resource officer and another might get three officers.”

The legislation does not address wealth disparities among districts. Obviously some property-poor districts might not levy an additional tax and would be unable to ramp up school security if the need is there.

“My personal opinion is to place it in a statewide formula,” Canyon ISD Superintendent Mike Wartes said. “It’s certainly worthy to ask them to do that. To me, it comes down to more of a responsibility of a statewide effort to improve safety and not independent entities trying to pass a tax for it. If they want to make it go just for security, earmark it.”

No, this is not home run legislation. Call it a solid single to left in an atmosphere of screaming and name-calling.

With school safety, let its taxpaying neighbors decide how much or no increase at all. It has some merit.

Jon Mark Beilue is a Globe-News columnist. He can be reached at jon.beilue@amarillo.com or 806-345-3318. His blog appears on amarillo.com. Follow him on Twitter: @jonmarkbeilue.

ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for
following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and
comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are
automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some
comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules,
click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.

Comment viewing options

Sort Comments

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Why not let the Teachers decide?...After all is said an done , it seems like it is the Teachers that are targets on the front line..They are the FIRST line of defense...It is THEIR hides at stake....THEY are there to defend, protect an teach our children...Let the teachers that prefer to qualify for a concealed carry permit, simply CARRY.. No need to hire extra guards, for the teacher is already a Guard on duty!.. Now if a teacher s not smart enough, an capable enough to carry, why the hell are they allowed to teach students in the first place?....If a teacher 'prefers' not to carry, then that is a personal choice.......

I agree with most of your statement. There are already schools where the have allowed school employees with a Concealed Carry Permit to carry guns. I agree it should be those that desire too carry. It shouldn't be forced on anyone. If they have the permit and a registered gun then the background checks should of been performed. In the interviews and articles I've read from schools that have implemented the policy of some employees carrying firearms the gun violence has decreased. In many cases it has went to zero. Several have administrators carrying firearms, at least one has teachers and another said 4 janitors were the only ones who desired to carry. I respect the right of anyone to choose not to carry a firearm. But for many schools allowing current employees to carry makes more sense and is cheaper than hiring a fulltime security person. The cost to the school when the allow an employee instead would be the needed training which should be required on a regular basis in my opinion. Many of the smaller schools would find it cost prohibitive to add a fulltime positions just for a security person. There are many well trained and qualified people in many of the schools. Many were either former LE officers or in the military. It only makes sense in many cases to use them.

There is no way a teacher that carries a weapon, or any other staff member, on a campus is a worthy substitute for a trained police officer. The typical school police officer is an officer for the local city police force or sheriff's office. Their salary is usually split between the school district and police dept. This is the best model and I believe that every campus needs one, either full time or part time, depending on the specific needs of the campus. Asking teachers to become law enforcement is unfair to them. If a teacher is licensed to carry and chooses to carry on a campus that allows it, that is their business and their right.

To replace those "gun free zone" signs with signs that say "This is Texas, everybody over the age of 10 is packing heat, bring a gun in and it better be in the holster and both your hands should be visible". "anyone wearing cammo or dressed all in black better be carrying a deer head or be a registered ninja".

Again the American pendulum swings to the extreme. With all of the guns available, both legal and illegal just how are we going to account for the deranged individual(s) choice of targets? A quick glimpse of various areas around the world should explain the impossibilities.

If any choice is to be made for schools it should be a qualified officer of law. Teachers have enough problems with miniature Hitlers running around. Give then a gun and see how many kids don’t make it home.

But remember folks any special provisions provided by the state requires taxes.

As a child of a teacher, my parent has told me this is a debate going on amongst high school teachers in Amarillo right now and a large percentage of teachers would choose NOT to have a gun. Why? Because the risk of an accident or altercation with a student is too much for them to bear. While some teacher smay choose to have a gun hidden in dangerous situations, we have to accept that some teachers dont want that for themselves.